On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>>> The rationale for the editor declining bug 8404 is[1]:
>>>
>>> Rationale: I actually agree with Shelley on this, and that's what HTML5
>>> used to
>>> say. However, it is one of the very few topics which got a _huge_ outcry
>>> from
>>> Web authors around the Web, demanding that <figure> be allowed to contain
>>> basically any flow content (including sections, headings, paragraphs,
>>> lists,
>>> etc). That's why the spec says what it does now.
>>>
>>> I searched through WhatWG and HTML WG email lists, and I didn't see
>>> any significant pushback on the original definition of figure. Most of
>>> the objections seemed to be attached to the bug, not in any email
>>> list.
>>
>> Here's the email where the change to the figure content model was first
>> announced:
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-February/014038.html
>>
>> It has replies to multiple messages, some of the ones I was able to identify
>> include:
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-November/008015.html
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-July/012194.html
>>
>> There is probably more discussion to be found in the WHATWG list archives
>> and elsewhere on the Web.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
>
> Thank you, yes, it does help. I hadn't found the message where Ian
> announced the change.
>
> I did find the two from Michael, who seems to be the only person who
> cared much about this. Frankly, most people were more interested in
> discussing what the figure caption element should be called.
>
> I don't have time to look further. If the Editor wants to provide more
> links to support his rationale, I'd welcome them.
>
> Shelley
>
>
I don't recall if I sent any mail or talked on IRC or what about this
issue, but often when someone says something that I agree with, I
won't make any further comment. There's no need to. In this case, I
recall agreeing strongly with what Michael said.
~TJ